TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to all petitions. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 2767 of 2006, 27 of 2007 and 124 of 2007. We have also heard Mr. Subhash Zha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 343 of 2007. Senior Counsel Mr. Dwarkadas and Mr. D. Vitre and the learned counsel Mr. J.P. Shah have also made submissions. We have heard them on their request, though the petitions in which they are appearing have been disposed of by separate orders. 3. We have also heard Mr. Borulkar the learned Public Prosecutor who appears for the respondent-State. Mr. Toor, Ms. Rathina Maravarman and Mr. Punwani, who appear for the respondent-Banks or financial institu-tions in these writ petitions have also made submissions. We have also heard Mr. Collabawalla. 4. We may briefly refer to the facts averred in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2767 of 2006. Petitioner 1 is a proprietary concern of petitioner 2. Petitioner 3 is a guarantor for the debt of petitioners 1 and 2. 5. According to the petitioners, they were banking with respondent 1, the Indian Bank. Respondent 1 vide their sanction letter dated 24-1-2002 san ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners and, in any event, the said letter is sent after expiry of 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice under section 13(2). 11. Mr. Soni, the learned counsel for the petitioners first took us to section 14 of the NPA Act. Mr. Soni submitted that this section which speaks of the power of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/District Magistrate (for convenience, the CMM/DM ) to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset begins with the words "where the possession of secured assets is required to be taken by the secured creditor...." Mr. Soni contended that it is implicit in this sentence that the CMM/DM has to apply his mind as to whether possession is required to be taken or not. 12. He then look us to rule 8(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short, the said Rules ) and contended that this rule speaks about what the authorised officer is supposed to do if possession of immovable property is actually taken. He submitted that therefore this provision contemplates a situation where the CMM/DM need not order taking possession. There could be cases whereafter due application of mind, it may appear to the CMM/DM that it is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase ( supra ), the action under sub-section (4) of section 13 was quashed and the secured creditor was directed to consider the objections afresh and if the objections are rejected, communicate the rejection to the petitioner therein. Mr. Soni contended that therefore the importance of the reply or objections can hardly be underestimated. That is a minimum safeguard afforded to the debtor under this stringent statute. It s importance is emphasised by the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. s case ( supra ). Therefore, the CMM/DM must find out whether objection of the debtor is considered or not. 16. Mr. Soni then contended that section 14(3) states that no act of CMM/DM in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority. Therefore, it is all the more necessary for the CMM/DM before exercising power under section 14 to apply his mind as to whether possession is required to be taken. He must find out whether the property is in fact mortgaged or not, if there is a tenant whether tenancy is lawful or not. His attention must be focussed on such and other related aspects. Such a drastic power cannot be exercised without application of m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n law cannot be done. The NPA Act does not override the Transfer of Property Act. In this connection, Mr. Soni took us to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Anaji Thamaji Patil v. Ragh Bhivraj Patil AIR 1973 (Bom.) 75. Mr. Soni contended that in most of the cases the borrower creates a simple mortgage. A simple mortgage consists of a personal obligation express or implied to pay and the transfer of a right to cause the property to be sold. The right transferred to the mortgagee is not ownership right. The ownership and possession of the property continues with the mortgagor. Mr. Soni submitted that therefore, in case of simple mortgage, the mortgagor can even transfer possession. All that the mortgagee is entitled to is an obligation to pay. He can cause the property to be sold and recover his money. But he cannot take possession because the ownership rights are not transferred. Mr. Soni submitted that if in case of simple mortgage, this is allowed to be done it will mean changing or improving the contract. It will be against the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. 21. Mr. Soni also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dev Rai Dogra v. Gyan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (4), (5) and (6) of section 11 of the Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court observed that once a statute creates an authority, confers on its power to adjudicate and makes its decision final on matters to be decided by it, normally, such a decision cannot be said on matters to be decided by it, normally, such a decision cannot be said to be a purely administrative decision. It is really a decision on its own jurisdiction for the exercise of the power conferred by the statute or to perform the duties imposed by the statute. The Supreme Court further observed that unless the authority satisfies itself that the conditions for exercise of its power exist, it could not accede to a request made to it for the exercise of the conferred power. The Supreme Court then observed that while exercising the power or performing the duty under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, the Chief Justice has to consider as to whether the conditions laid down by the section for the exercise of that power or for the performance of that duty exist and, therefore, while functioning under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, the Chief Justice or the person or institution designated by him is bound to decide whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. 26. Mr. Joshi took us to rule 8(3)(6) and (6a), rule 9(7), (8), (9) and (10) of the said Rules. He submitted that these rules lay down the procedure for sale of secured asset. He submitted that rule 8(3) begins with the words in the event of possession of immovable property is actually taken by the authorised officer. He submitted that the words physical possession are absent in the NPA Act or the said Rules and rule 8(3) contemplates a situation where possession of immovable property may not be taken. He pointed out that under rule 8(6)( a ), the notice which the authorised officer has to serve on the borrower must include the description of the immovable property to be sold including the details of the encumbrances known to the secured creditor. Rule 9(7) speaks of a case where the immovable property is sold subject to any encumbrances. In such cases, the authorised officer may if he thinks fit allow the purchaser to deposit within him the money required to discharge the encumbrances. Under sub-rule (8) on such deposit for discharge of encumbrances, the authorised officer may issue notice to the person entitled to the money deposited and take steps to make the payment a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o apply his mind as to whether the possession is required to be taken and to all related questions. Mr. Dwarkadas pointed out that under section 17(3) of the NPA Act, the DRT has to only consider whether the possession is required to be delivered or restored to the borrower. It does not speak about restoration of possession to a third party and therefore section 17 does not provide an alternative or efficacious remedy for a third party. 29. Mr. Dwarkadas submitted that that remedy under section 17 is not available to persons other than borrowers is clear from section 19. Section 19 states that if DRT on application made under section 17 or the Appellate Tribunal on an appeal preferred under section 18 holds that the possession of secured assets by the secured creditor is not in accordance with the provisions of the NPA Act, it can direct the secured creditor to return such secured assets to the concerned borrower and the concerned borrower shall be entitled to payment of compensation. Therefore, there is no relief provided to a third party. 30. Mr. Dwarkadas contended that in Transcore v. Union of India [2007] 73 SCL 11 , the Supreme Court has in paragraph 54 clearly st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw, on subsequent documents can affect his rights to the said flat. Prior registered documents of title would override subsequent documents. Mr. D Vitre submitted that section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act and section 47 of the Registration Act come to the aid of such a person. Mr. D Vitre submitted that in such cases, writ petition is the only available and efficacious remedy and this Court should not hesitate to give relief to such a person. 33. Mr. Zha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 343 of 2007 adopted the arguments of Mr. Soni. He reiterated that though section 14 of the NPA Act does not provide for a notice to borrower or third parties, notice to them must be read into that section to secure ends of justice. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2004] 2 SCC 447 : AIR 2004 SC 1280. In that case, the Supreme Court was inter alia , considering whether while fixing the quantum of compensation, the accused should be heard. It was argued before the Supreme Court that section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, the Code ) nowhere postulates grant of an opportun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... natural justice, the statute will not be invalidated for this omission on the ground of arbitrariness. Mr. Borulkar also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager, Indian Oil Corpo-ration Ltd. [2005] 7 SSC 764 : AIR 2005 SC 4217. There the Supreme Court was considering dismissal of an employee of the Indian Oil Corporation without notice or inquiry. Mr. Borulkar pointed out that the Supreme Court has held in this case that the principles of natural justice are not rigid or immutable and, hence they cannot be imprisoned in a strait jacket. Mr. Borulkar relying on this judgment contended that the object and the scheme of the NPA Act will have to be taken into consideration while deciding whether principles of natural justice are implied by excluded. In this case, the exclusion is in consonance with the object of the NPA Act, submitted Mr. Borulkar. 35. Mr. Borulkar then contended that considering the proximity of the high officers mentioned in section 14 to authorities which provide force, the Legislature asked them to exercise this ministerial power. Mr. Borulkar, submitted that section 14(4) grants immunity to the actions of the CMM/DM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India [1997] 228 ITR 725 (SC). 40. Mr. Borulkar further submitted that the judgment in SBP Co. s case ( supra ) has no application to the facts of the present case. He submitted that the purpose and object of the NPA Act and the Arbitration Act are distinct, and different. According to Mr. Borulkar, reliance placed on this judgment is misplaced. 41. Mr. Toor, the learned counsel for the respondent-bank in Criminal Writ Petition No. 124 of 2007 contended that the NPA Act aims at protecting the secured creditor. The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, the DRT Act ) did not provide any protection against languishing of securities of secured creditors. Therefore, under the NPA Act, the moment loan is granted, interest of the bank is created in the asset. The asset vests in the bank the moment loan is granted. Interest of the bank becomes absolute once there is a default committed by the borrower. Thereafter, opportunity is sought to be given to the borrower by issuing notice under section 13(2) to repay the loan. If the borrower does not repay, the secured creditor can take any of the measures set out in section 13(4). The lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the NPA Act and the DRT Act. He submitted that therefore assuming that under section 14 the CMM/DM exercises judicial power, it must be held that he cannot adjudicate upon issues which the DRT or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. 47. Mr. Toor further submitted that section 35 of the NPA Act gives overriding effect to its provisions. Therefore, this Act overrides the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or any other laws. 48. Mr. Toor pointed out that section 38 gives power to the Central Government to make rules. There is no provision enabling the Central Government to make rules in respect of section 14 that is because the CMM/DM exercises ministerial power. 49. Mr. Toor then submitted that in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. s case ( supra ), the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the NPA Act. Section 14 is upheld after examining the NPA Act on the touchstone of article 14. Principles of natural justice are part and parcel of article 14. Hence, there can be no question of giving notice under section 14. That aspect cannot be examined now. 50. Mr. Toor contended that the provisions of the NPA Act have to be interpreted keeping in mind its backg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam (25 of 1964) was involved. It reads as under: "(3) if the produce is purchased by the trader from another trader, the trade selling the produce may realise it from the purchaser and shall be liable to pay the market fee to the Committee." 56. The Supreme Court noted that the word used for the seller to realise market fee from his purchaser is may while the word used for the seller to pay the market fee to the Committee is shall . The Supreme Court observed that the employment of the said two monosyllables is of great jurisprudential import in the same clause dealing with two rights regarding the same burden must have two different imports. The Supreme Court observed that the legislative intendment can easily be discerned from the frame of the sub-clause that what is conferred on the seller is only an option to collect market fee from his purchaser but the seller has no such option and it is imperative for him to remit the fee to the Committee. In other words, the market Committee is entitled to collect market fee from the seller irrespective of whether the seller has realised it from the purchaser or not. Mr. Colabawalla contended t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inquiry because he is merely doing a ministerial function. 59. Ms. Rathina Maravarman, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank in criminal writ petition No. 2767 of 2006 adopted the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. She submitted that remedy of appeal under section 17 is available to the borrower as well as to the third parties. According to her a full-fledged hearing is available under section 19 of the NPA Act. The learned counsel urged that when efficacious and alternative remedy is available, a writ petition should not be entertained. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa AIR 1954 1954 SC 440. She submitted that it is wrong to say that appeals filed by third parties are not entertained or that third parties do not get any relief under section 17 of the NPA Act. The learned counsel drew our attention to judgments of the DRT where such appeals are entertained and in some cases relief is also given. 60. Mr. Punwani, the learned counsel appearing for respondent 2 in writ petition No. 343 of 2007 adopted the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. He submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale. The said Act also empowers the said asset reconstruction companies to take over the management of the business of the borrower. . . ." (p. 20) 64. Following is the gist of the relevant portion of the Supreme Court judgment : ( a )The DRT Act did not provide for assignment of debts to securitisation companies. The secured assets could not be liquidated in time. The NPA Act was enacted to reduce mounting non-performing assets by empowering banks to liquidate the assets and secured interest. ( b )The NPA Act deals with crystallized liabilities. ( c )The NPA Act proceeds on the basis that the asset is created in favour of bank which could be assigned to the assets management company which steps into the shoes of the secured creditors. ( d )Section 13(2) proceeds on the basis that the borrower is under a liability and his account in the books of account of the bank is classified as sub-standard or doubtful or loss. The NPA Act comes into force only if these two conditions are satisfied. ( e )Since section 13(2) deals with liquidation of liability on the basis that the account of the borrower has become non-performing, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als with the sale of immovable secured assets Rule 8 deals with the stage anterior to the issuance of sale certificate and delivery of possession under rule 9. Rule 9 relates to time of sale, issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession. Till the time of issuance of sale certificate, the authorised officer is like a Court receiver under Order XL, Rule 1 of the CPC. The court receiver can take symbolic possession and in appropriate cases, he can take actual possession even prior to the decree. The authorised officer s powers are greater as security interest is already created in the bank. Hence, under rule 8 he can take steps to preserve the secured asset till issuance of the sale certificate under rule 9. Rule 9(6) states that on confirmation of sale, if the terms of payment are complied with, the authorised officer shall issue a sale certificate in favour of the purchaser. Rule 9(9) states that the authorised officer shall deliver the property to the buyer free from all encumbrances known to the secured creditor or not known to the secured creditor. This scheme of the NPA Act therefore does not disclose any dichotomy between symbolic possession and physical possession. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be rejected in view of the clear observation of the Supreme Court in Transcore s case ( supra ) that the dichotomy between symbolic and physical possession does not find place in the NPA Act. The contention based on Order XXI rules 95 and 96 of the CPC that if tenants are in occupation of the mortgaged property, auction purchaser is not entitled to recover physical possession from the tenants that auction purchaser is entitled to symbolic possession and that possession can be taken only after sale after applying to the Court and therefore taking over such possession is illegal; must also fail in view of the gist of the observations of the Supreme Court quoted by us in sub-clauses ( n ), ( o ) and ( p ) of paragraph 62. 67. When the bank takes any measures under section 13(4), on account of failure of the borrower to repay the liability is already crystallized. Similarly when the secured creditor approaches the CMM/DM for assistance to take possession of the secured asset, the liability having been crystallized, there can be no adjudication about it at that stage. Possession has to be taken by non-adjudicatory process. There is no question of pointing out to the CMM/DM at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as prescribed under the NPA Act raising grievance against the petition action or measures taken by one of the parties to the contract. It was further observed that it is the stage of initial proceedings like filing a suit in the civil court. The Supreme Court concluded that as a matter of fact proceedings under section 17 are in lieu of a civil suit which remedy is ordinarily available but for the bar under section 34 of the NPA Act. The argument that it will not be possible to produce any documents there that their objection can be taken only to procedural irregularities about measures taken under section 13(4) must also be rejected. In this connection, we may also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank s case ( supra ). In that case, the Supreme Court has after referring to its earlier judgment reiterated that the DRT can travel beyond the CPC and the only fetter that is put on its powers is to observe the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court has further observed that the DRT can pass orders to secure the ends of justice. In view of these observations, it is not possible for us to restrict the width and amplitude of the DRT s powers. 70. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no provision under the NPA Act putting fetters on the DRTs powers particularly when in Allahabad Bank s case ( supra ), the Supreme Court has held that it can travel beyond the CPC and it can pass orders to secure ends of justice. 73. There is no doubt that a party who is likely to be adversely affected by any action must be given a hearing before the action is taken. It is submitted that while acting under section 14, the CMM/DM is exercising judicial powers. It is submitted that while exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers, principles of natural justice must be followed. It is argued that even while exercising administrative powers, principles of natural justice must be followed and where a statute is silent in the interest of justice notice must be read into it. Several judgments of the Supreme Court have been cited before us in support of these submissions. Heavy reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi s case ( supra ). None can dispute these well-settled principles. 74. However, we cannot ignore the object of the NPA Act. We have already quoted the reasons for the enactment of the NPA Act. It is a stringent statute. It proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the action to be taken, its object and purpose and the scheme of the relevant statutory provisions warrant its exclusion. The Supreme Court further observed that if legislation and the necessities of a situation can exclude the principles of natural justice including the audi alteram partem rule, a fortiori, so can a provision of the Constitution. We feel that the above observations of the Supreme Court are attracted to the present case. 77. In our opinion to secure its object the NPA Act has by necessary implication ruled out giving hearing either to the borrower or third parties till the application is filed under section 17. As observed by the Supreme Court in Transcore s case ( supra ) section 6 of the NPA Act inter alia states that the bank or financial institution may, if it considers appropriate give a notice of acquisition of financial assets by any securitisation company or reconstruction company to the borrower and to any other concerned person but they may or may not give notice to the borrower regarding acquisition of financial assets the reason being that assets are transferable overnight. Section 13(2) contemplates a notice to the borrower calling upon hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct and hence hearing is a must. It is not necessary for us to go into all these arguments in view of our conclusion that section 14 of the NPA Act by necessary implication rules out notice or hearing to the borrower or third party and looking to the object of the NPA Act, such a conclusion is inevitable and justified. 80. It was also argued that section 14(3) gives finality to order passed by the CMM/DM under section 14 and, therefore, it is necessary to hear parties who are likely to be adversely affected by it. 81. We find no substance in this submission. In this connection, it is necessary to have a look at section 14(2) and (3). It reads thus : "14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset. (1) ** ** ** (2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken steps and use, or cause to be used, such force as may, in his opinion, be necessary. (3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate done in pursuance of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rbitration Act, the conditions for the exercise of the power are clearly laid down. Adjudication is apparent from section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. In fact, in SBP Co. s case ( supra ), the Supreme Court has clearly stated that while exercising the power under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, the Chief Justice has to consider whether the conditions laid down by the section exist or not. Whereas, in section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, the Legislature has laid down conditions for exercise of the powers, no such conditions are found in section 14 of the NPA Act. In SBP Co. s case ( supra ) the Supreme Court has clearly stated that section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act contemplates power to adjudicate. The Supreme Court has clarified that adjudication is involved in the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal and therefore, the Chief Justice has to inquire whether the conditions for exercise of his power under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act exist and only on being satisfied in that behalf, could he appoint an arbitrator or an Arbitral Tribunal on the basis of the request. So far as the NPA Act is concerned, adjudication is clearly excluded by the Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertained the petition under article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the guarantor to take recourse to appeal mechanism provided under the DRT Act. 88. There can be no dispute about this proposition. Generally, such writ petitions should not be entertained and parties must be relegated to alternative remedy available to them in law and, in fact, this course is being followed by this Court. However, the Supreme Court has not ruled in the above judgment that even in an exceptional case of gravest injustice remedy of writ is not available to a party. For instance if without obtaining an order under section 14 of the NPA Act, with the help of police, a person is dispossessed, the High Court may have to entertain such a writ petition, protect the secured asset by appropriate conditions and relegate that person to DRT. Similarly if the High Court finds that the action taken by the bank or financial institution on the face of it cannot be sustained because it is hit by section 31 of the NPA Act. the High Court may entertain a writ petition. As done by the Nagpur Bench of this Court in M.R. Gawai Enterprises case ( supra ) a writ petition may have to be entertained i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 17 is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the third party as well as to the borrower where all grievances can be raised. 7.In view of the fact that efficacious alternative remedy is available to the borrower as well as to the third party, ordinarily, writ petition under articles 226 and 227 the Constitution of India should not be entertained. 8.In exceptional cases of gravest injustice, a writ petition could be entertained by this Court. 9.Great care and caution must be exercised while entertaining a writ petition because in a given case it may result in frustrating the object of the NPA Act. 10.Even if a writ petition is entertained, as far as possible, the parties should be relegated to the remedy provided under section 17 of the NPA Act before the DRT by passing an interim order which will protect the secured assets. Adjudication and final order should be left to the DRT as far as possible. 91. Having dealt with the main issue, we will now deal with the individual writ petitions. 92. We have already narrated facts of Criminal Writ Petition No. 2767 of 2006. It was argued that since respondent 1 has not replied to the objections raised by the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt for setting aside orders dated 19-9-2006 and 15-12-2006. 97. Since symbolic possession is taken by respondent 1 - UCO Bank, if the petitioners desire to file an application under section 17 of the NPA Act, they may do so. The interim protection granted by this Court shall continue to operate only for a period of four weeks from today. For further continuation of the interim relief, the parties will have to approach the DRT. The DRT shall deal with the matter independently and in accordance with law. Criminal Writ Petition No. 27 of 2007 is disposed of in the aforestated terms. 98. We shall now refer to the facts of Criminal Writ Petition No. 124 of 2007. Petitioner 1 therein is a proprietary concern of petitioner 2. Petitioner 3 is a guarantor for the debt of petitioners 1 and 2. The petitioners were banking with respondent 1 bank. Respondent 1 had sanctioned cash credit facility of Rs. 19 lakhs, STPL facility of Rs. 35 lakhs, WCTL facility of Rs. 15.50 lakhs and Rs. 13 lakhs to the petitioners. Respondent 1 also sanctioned facility of bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lakhs STC facility of Rs. 5 lakhs. 99. It appears to be the case of respondent 1 that the petitioners have c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e week from today stating that they shall not alienate, encumber or create any third party interest in the secured assets or any part thereof till DRT passes appropriate orders regarding interim reliefs. The DRT shall consider the application independently and in accordance with law. We make it clear that this order shall not come in the way of settlement talks if any, which may be going on between the parties. Criminal Writ Petition No. 124 of 2007 is disposed of in the aforestated terms. 103. We shall now turn to the facts of Criminal Writ Petition No. 343 of 2007. The petitioners in this petition have obtained housing loan in respect of Flat No. 1402, Divya Gunjan, Gaurav Garden, Kandivali (West), Mumbai (for convenience, the said flat ). While petitioner 1 was granted loan of Rs. 19,00.000 petitioner 1 was granted loan of Rs. 5,00,000 by respondent 2, LIC Housing Finance Limited. Thus, in respect of the said flat, total loan of Rs. 24,00,000 was granted to the petitioners by respondent 2. 104. It appears that the petitioners have created equitable mortgage in favour of respondent 2 by depositing relevant documents of the said flat with respondent 2. The petitioners fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
